TRAMCAR INCIDENT

Northern Advocate, 8 November 1934, Page 3

TRAMCAR INCIDENT

I INJURED GARDENER. TRANSPORT BOARD SUED. PLAINTIFF AWARDED £684. [Special to “Northern Advocate.”} AUCKLAND, This Day. The claim for damages against the Auckland Transport Board by Harold Thomas Middleton, market gardener, of Avondale, arising out of injuries which he sustained from a fall from the platform of a Mount Albert car was continued before Mr Justice Herdman and a jury yesterday. Plaintiff, who was represented by Mr Dickson and Mr Graham, contended that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the tramcar. He sustained a fracture of the skull and claimed £ISOO general damages and £lB5 special damages. Mr A, H. Johnstone, K.C., and Mr Mackay appeared for the board.

The defence, denied any negligence and alleged that while under the influence of liquor plaintiff either fell from the platform or attempted to leave while the car was in motion.

Evidence was called on plaintiff’s behalf to show that the tram gave a jerk soon after leaving Salisbury Road, throwing him on to the road, Arthur William Harris, an electrician, said that a jolt might be caused in a tramcar by the motorman passing over several notches in applying the power.

To his Honour, the witness admitted that he had never driven a tramcar.

Mr Johnstone, in opening, the defence, said that it could not be' proved that the plaintiff’s injuries were due to any negligence on the part of the driver.

Another passenger .on the tram, Edwin- Scott, stated* that plaintiff seemed very jovial when he boarded it. He became a nuisance to witness, who went inside to avoid him. The witness expressed ‘the opinion that plaintiff was under the influence of liquor. The motorman of the tram, Andrew Holmes, stated that he did not stop the vehicle at Salisbury Road, although he slowed down to approximately 10 miles an hour in expectation of getting a bell to stop. When informed that a passenger had fallen off, he applied the emergency brake. Alongside the plaintiff on the road were what witness knew as two squareriggers.

To his Honour: There was no jerking whatever. The only jerking? which took place was when I pulled tlxe tram up.

Kenneth Nelson Chrisp. constable, stated that he was travelling in the tram in plain clothes. There was no jolt, he said, prior to the tram pulling up after the accident. Robert Ward, another passenger on the tram, said he was prepared to swear that there was no jolt. Nox’man Walker Campbell expressed the opinion that the plaintiff, whom he observed when he (witness) was getting off the tram, was under • the influence of liquor. The conductor of the car, Mr F. T. Doig, said the car did not stop at Salisbury Road, but was brought to a sudden stop just past that point. There was no jolt before the stop. He did not see any man intoxicated on the car that night. A report of an interview he had had with plaintiff in hospital a few days after the accident was given by Constable J. A. Du Temple. Middleton told him he had had several “spots” that afternoon and that he was probably under the influence of liquor at the time of the accident.

Called by Mr Dickson, a companion of the plaintiff on the afternoon of the accident* said the plaintiff had three “half handles” of beer and was quite sober.

Called by Mr Johnstone, Dr. T. W. J. Johnson expressed the opinion that the plaintiff’s symptoms would disappear in about 12 months from the accident. v .

His Honour, in dh’ecting the jux'y, said that no pex*son could succeed in such a claim unless he proved a breach of duty, Motormeix were bound to exercise reasonable care, and the question was whether in this case the motorman had suddenly started his car in such a way as to dislodge a man standing on the platform. When people were travelling on tramcai*s it was their duty to take care of themselves. The main thing for the jury to decide was whether there was satisfactory proof, or any proof at all, that the motorman in charge of this car had been guilty of some breach of duty. After a retirement of 3.’ hours the jury brought in a vcx'dict, by a majority of nine to three, that there had beexx negligence on the part of defendant boax’d. They awarded £SOO general and £lB4 special damages.

His Honour entcx*ed a verdict for plaintiff accordingly. Mr Mackay was granted a fortnight in Which to apply for d retrial.